OUR VIEW  Right-to-work generates more noise than real change

Michigan officially became the country’s 24th “right-to-work” state when the controversial law passed by the Legislature in December officially took effect March 28. For all the hubbub about the law, it probably won’t have nearly as great an effect as either its critics or proponents say, and some of the effects it will have may be different from what was originally intended.

Holland Sentinel

Writer

Posted Apr. 7, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Updated Apr 7, 2013 at 7:05 AM

Posted Apr. 7, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Updated Apr 7, 2013 at 7:05 AM

Holland

Michigan officially became the country’s 24th “right-to-work” state when the controversial law passed by the Legislature in December officially took effect March 28. For all the hubbub about the law, it probably won’t have nearly as great an effect as either its critics or proponents say, and some of the effects it will have may be different from what was originally intended.

Right-to-work, which bars compulsory union dues as a condition of employment, was sold partly as an economic development tool, but we don’t expect it to have any real impact on job growth and business relocation, especially in West Michigan. Proponents and critics can each cite their own statistics on job growth in right-to-work states, but the fact is no business moving to or significantly expanding in Michigan in 2013 was going to become a unionized workplace anyway, especially on our side of the state. Union organizing is not high on the worry list of corporate executive at a time when unemployment is high and workers know jobs can easily be moved to other states and other parts of the country.

Right-to-work was also billed as a means to bring greater freedom to workers, and that will be the case. Employees in union workplaces already had the right to opt out of paying for union political activity or anything other than the core union functions of contract negotiation and administration. Now all union payments will be optional. (Labor contracts signed before March 28 aren’t affected.) The new rules will force many unions that have coasted along on past successes, or simple inertia, to up their game and prove to workers that they are really providing value and that there are advantages to union solidarity.

But we don’t expect right-to-work to be a real “union buster.” Unions are well entrenched in the auto industry and the public sector in Michigan, and we don’t expect to see any major erosion in union ranks in those workplaces anytime soon.

As we’ve said before, right-to-work, at least in Michigan, is really about politics, not workplace rights. Even with today’s dwindling rates of union membership, organized labor remains a bulwark of the Democratic Party in Michigan, and weakening unions, especially the powerful and active Michigan Education Association, has been a goal for many Republican politicians for some time. The failure of unions and Democrats to stop right-to-work in December represented a major setback for them, but it also gave them a rallying cry they can use for years. Democrats can’t reverse right-to-work unless they take over both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office, but right-to-work may help Democrats portray Republicans as anti-worker, a message that may gain increasing resonance as economic disparities widen in America.

The right-to-work debate isn’t settled in Michigan because both sides have their own reasons for keeping the discussion alive. We expect the rhetoric over right-to-work will far exceed its real impact for some time to come.